Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote:A few nights ago I watched a show that was suggesting some very odd characteristics about the moon. Which, if true, is rather startling. Such as, despite there being a vast range of circumference sizes of craters, they’re all the same depth! That makes no sense. Furthermore, the precise size, distance, and orbit of the moon, to allow eclipses with the sun, are phenomenal odds. Also notable is that we only ever see one side of it. Finally, when the Apollo mission (I think that’s the one) was returning to Earth, it released part of its equipment to fall back to the moon. Their sensors picked up that when the equipment hit the moon, the moon “rang like a bell” for a full minute! They couldn’t explain this, and so on another mission they released a larger load to fall back on the moon, and that rang like a bell for 3 minutes! The soft surface of the moon should not cause anything like that... and apparently scientists can’t explain that either. Are these false claims?

One theory suggests that the moon is actually a metal structure with a false surface... which could possibly be used as an observation base for someone. It was also suggested that it could have been towed into place... into precise position... a very long time ago -- perhaps to watch and interact with this earthly/humankind experiment?

Opinions or insights, anyone?

Sounds like Bob.

PhilX

Lacewing wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzV_f7hRqQ

Proof of 'Bigfoot'. (Highly reputable). Did you know that the Moon landings were faked? Proven beyond a shadow (excuse the pun) of a doubt.

Okay, that was totally annoying. All the camera-zooming in and out, and then jerking around to try to disorient us, only to end up seeing what was clearly a guy in a hairy suit running. No other creature runs like that.

If you're not going to take this seriously... I can't have this conversation!

I'm completely serious (and highly reputable).

Lacewing wrote:Such as, despite there being a vast range of circumference sizes of craters, they’re all the same depth! That makes no sense.

That one is plainly false. If you go to this page: https://the-moon.wikispaces.com/Catalog ... ar+Craters and go down to the second "2009," you can download an Excel spreadsheet with data for over 8500 lunar craters. Crater depth ranges from negligible--craters that are just deep enough to make out that they're craters, to 5.8 kilometers, and it's a steady progression from "0" (rounded to the nearest 100th of a kilometer) to 5.8k.

Furthermore, the precise size, distance, and orbit of the moon, to allow eclipses with the sun, are phenomenal odds.

As others mentioned above, this is just coincidental and won't last long (in astronomical terms).

Also notable is that we only ever see one side of it.

That is a quirk of lunar formation due to the moon basically being a big piece of the Earth (well, or "proto-Earth") that broke off.

Finally, when the Apollo mission (I think that’s the one) was returning to Earth, it released part of its equipment to fall back to the moon. Their sensors picked up that when the equipment hit the moon, the moon “rang like a bell” for a full minute!

Apollo astronauts placed seismometers on the lunar surface that radioed info back to Earth so that we could observe any seismic activity on the moon. The moon turned out to be far more seismically active than we expected. I've never heard claims about debris setting off significant seismic activity, but the moon vibrates much more effectively when seismic activity occurs than the Earth does simply because of its material composition. It's rigid, there's no moisture, and it's relatively cool/compressed (underground), three factors that promote longer-lasting sympathetic vibrations.

Lacewing wrote:A few nights ago I watched a show that was suggesting some very odd characteristics about the moon. Which, if true, is rather startling. Such as, despite there being a vast range of circumference sizes of craters, they’re all the same depth! That makes no sense. Furthermore, the precise size, distance, and orbit of the moon, to allow eclipses with the sun, are phenomenal odds. Also notable is that we only ever see one side of it. Finally, when the Apollo mission (I think that’s the one) was returning to Earth, it released part of its equipment to fall back to the moon. Their sensors picked up that when the equipment hit the moon, the moon “rang like a bell” for a full minute! They couldn’t explain this, and so on another mission they released a larger load to fall back on the moon, and that rang like a bell for 3 minutes! The soft surface of the moon should not cause anything like that... and apparently scientists can’t explain that either. Are these false claims?

One theory suggests that the moon is actually a metal structure with a false surface... which could possibly be used as an observation base for someone. It was also suggested that it could have been towed into place... into precise position... a very long time ago -- perhaps to watch and interact with this earthly/humankind experiment?

Opinions or insights, anyone?

One detail that I can point out is that the distance from the Earth to the Moon is increasing, so the fact that the moon is just the right size to eclipse the Sun is just a coincidence that works now, but millions of years earlier or later it will not work as well.

As far as the Moon "ringing like a bell", that is not so odd as it sounds, as the Earth will do so as well, as will any solid planet, and it has a similar effect on the gas giants as well. It's just that the Moon can be tested and recorded more easily. In fact that is how a seismograph works which allows scientists to learn the structure of the interior of the Earth, without actually going there. The actual surface of the Moon may be relatively soft to the touch, but the Moon itself is a relatively rigid structure, most scientists do have an idea of what is going on, the producers want to give a false sense of mystery.

If these facts don't make sense to the producers of the show, it's because they don't want to explore the explanations that have been given by the scientists who are researching these phenomenon, and want to leave the viewer with the idea that there is a mystery, when scientists actually have some reasonable ideas about what is happening.

Finally craters are not all the same depth, but they are well preserved due to the relative lack of weathering on the Moon, weathering that has erased all but the youngest craters on Earth.

Terrapin Station wrote:...

Thanks for those helpful perspectives. I know they certainly seem more normal and reasonable.

I do prefer clarity over fantasy... I'm just not sure we can always tell the difference... and this ALL may be fantasy. I endeavor to have fun with it, whatever it is.

Lacewing wrote:
You've done a good job of addressing each of the claims! As Bill would say: Thank you for your participation in this most important thread.

I thought you'd been taken over but occult forces there!!!

Lacewing wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:...

Thanks for those helpful perspectives. I know they certainly seem more normal and reasonable.

I do prefer clarity over fantasy... I'm just not sure we can always tell the difference... and this ALL may be fantasy. I endeavor to have fun with it, whatever it is.

What I want to know is WHAT HAVE THEY DONE WITH ALL THE CHEESE???

Interesting facts then. The far side of the moon is made of different (lighter) stuff that was probably once a second moon that made a soft landing there. It was perhaps more composed of the original object that whacked the Earth and made the moon in the first place. Who knows what natural moon we might have had before then, but looking at what Venus and Mars sport, I suspect nothing significant.

The moon is moving away. The days and months will continue to get longer until both are about 1500 hours. Then the moon (due to solar tidal forces) will begin to creep closer to Earth again and the day will shorten to less than the 10 hour day of Jupiter. All these changes are due to tidal friction. The moon will make one of those zero velocity soft landings on Earth which will be immense fun to watch if we survive to see it. Unfortunately, that's not our fate since the sun will go nova and swallow Earth before all that happens.

Noax wrote:Interesting facts then. The far side of the moon is made of different (lighter) stuff that was probably once a second moon that made a soft landing there. It was perhaps more composed of the original object that whacked the Earth and made the moon in the first place. Who knows what natural moon we might have had before then, but looking at what Venus and Mars sport, I suspect nothing significant.

"Far side of the moon mystery solved" http://earthsky.org/space/dark-side-of- ... ery-solved

... is cheese... Camembert...

Don't make me state the obvious *sigh*

Dalek Prime wrote:... is cheese... Camembert...

Don't make me state the obvious *sigh*

No - it's a bit runny.

I found their book in a secondhand shop a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Moon_Theory

Arising_uk wrote:I found their book in a secondhand shop a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Moon_Theory

Okay! NOW we're getting serious about this!

Arising_uk wrote:I found their book in a secondhand shop a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Moon_Theory

And they explained the tides.... how?

It's embarrassing to think that me and Simon were very close friends between 1968 - 1976, and went to the same schools.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHaZvpg6rnE

After about an hour - he mentions that the moon is a artificial satellite, placed there by aliens.